Windows XP SP3. Much better than Vista SP1


Recommended Posts

Xilo
Well then why would those people update to Windows 7 with Windows 8 another 3 years away? People need to understand an operating system doesn't have to be 5 years old to be worth it. If you get a new computer sometime in the next couple of years there's no reason to not run Vista on it, but it's totally understandable that someone wouldn't want to buy an upgrade for older hardware - but I've always understood that, except in the case of 98 right now given the fact it's not supported any longer.

Windows 7 won't last any longer, and you can bet it too will have teething problems. Every single new Windows operating system does.

The same reason a lot of people decided to stick with Windows 98SE and skip Windows ME until Windows XP was released.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rdxg0d

Well the payback is when they release Windows 7 and its modular based and all the scrapped features from the longhorn beta builds get incorporated into the next version of windows....seeing that thats why microsoft scrapped it....really now do you think microsoft did away with all that code....hmm i think not....Microsoft is sneekier and has been in the game longer, vista is a testbed to whats to come........Apple stop trying to be the T-Rex and be happy your the Velasoraptor.....Look at coverflow looks alot like Phodeo and Microsoft MAX...*cough cough* apple turn off your copiers .....Apple keeps throwing up the two headed coin and microsoft could careless they have 95% of the market up its ass and they know it....And Microsoft knows for a fact XP will die like 2000 did along with 98, Microsoft knows eventually People will move on....XP will lose its support and life goes on ...those of you bitching about the service packs sp3 better than sp1, im gonna laugh when sp3 isnt released....WHICH I HOPE THEY EITHER PHUCK IT UP BY TROJAN HORSING IT OR JUST PLAIN OUT DONT RELEASE IT...all in all its gonna be a fun ride this new year.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
dud
Well the payback is when they release Windows 7 and its modular based and all the scrapped features from the longhorn beta builds get incorporated into the next version of windows....seeing that thats why microsoft scrapped it....really now do you think microsoft did away with all that code....hmm i think not....Microsoft is sneekier and has been in the game longer, vista is a testbed to whats to come........Apple stop trying to be the T-Rex and be happy your the Velasoraptor.....Look at coverflow looks alot like Phodeo and Microsoft MAX...*cough cough* apple turn off your copiers .....Apple keeps throwing up the two headed coin and microsoft could careless they have 95% of the market up its ass and they know it....And Microsoft knows for a fact XP will die like 2000 did along with 98, Microsoft knows eventually People will move on....XP will lose its support and life goes on ...those of you bitching about the service packs sp3 better than sp1, im gonna laugh when sp3 isnt released....WHICH I HOPE THEY EITHER PHUCK IT UP BY TROJAN HORSING IT OR JUST PLAIN OUT DONT RELEASE IT...all in all its gonna be a fun ride this new year.....

1/10

I've seen better trolls. You're small-time.

Edited by Unwonted
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yusuf M.
Haha! Thanks a lot! :D

You're quite welcome. :)

Well the payback is when they release Windows 7 and its modular based and all the scrapped features from the longhorn beta builds get incorporated into the next version of windows....seeing that thats why microsoft scrapped it....really now do you think microsoft did away with all that code....hmm i think not....Microsoft is sneekier and has been in the game longer, vista is a testbed to whats to come........Apple stop trying to be the T-Rex and be happy your the Velasoraptor.....Look at coverflow looks alot like Phodeo and Microsoft MAX...*cough cough* apple turn off your copiers .....Apple keeps throwing up the two headed coin and microsoft could careless they have 95% of the market up its ass and they know it....And Microsoft knows for a fact XP will die like 2000 did along with 98, Microsoft knows eventually People will move on....XP will lose its support and life goes on ...those of you bitching about the service packs sp3 better than sp1, im gonna laugh when sp3 isnt released....WHICH I HOPE THEY EITHER PHUCK IT UP BY TROJAN HORSING IT OR JUST PLAIN OUT DONT RELEASE IT...all in all its gonna be a fun ride this new year.....

Your post is riddled with spelling and grammar errors. I almost can't make heads or tails of it. Nice one by circumventing the swear filter. I take it you haven't read the neowin community rules. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
toadeater
GDI apps aren't "remapped" to DirectX. If they were, they would be hardware accelerated. The off-screen buffer for a window exists in both system memory and GPU memory.

My understanding is that if an XDDM driver (XP driver) is used, GDI will be accelerated. But the DWM won't run, and DirectX 10 won't work. Basically you'll be running XP as far as display and window management goes.

Still not sure what DirectX remapping you're talking about. Direct3D is responsible for getting things onto the screen, but not for drawing the client areas of GDI apps into their respective window buffers.

The "remapping" is a term that's used by websites discussing this GDI issue in Vista. Call it whatever you want to call it, it equates to software rendering GDI-based GUIs (which is pretty much every Windows application) into a buffer, and then using DirectX to render it onto 3D-accelerated surfaces.

I don't know if using XDDM drives would revert Vista back to using GDI instead of DirectX or not. If so, then this might be the best way to run Photoshop and other GUI-heavy GDI apps in Vista?

You should read the article I linked to if you want to understand the inherent problems in "remapping" GDI to DirectX. It's more than just the use of software rendering and extra RAM, GDI apps compete with DirectX for screen redraws, not just CPU time, so they slow down even your hardware-rendered stuff in some cases, or cause graphic corruption when transparency is used.

What I wanted to know was if this was indeed what was causing such a major slowdown in some applications in Vista compared to XP (it sounds like it is), or if it might be something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chode
sorry but i did not know you was Neowins punctuation police

"Sorry, but i did not know that you were Neowin's punctuation police."

Punctuation and spelling is as a sign of respect to the other members of this board. Others make an effort, so should you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Genius
I can bet you said that for XP...... please, if don't have something good to say just shut up please

uh... don't shut me up, and your theories about everyone having vista installed sooner or later aren't true, so please, some manners,?and?for?XP?i?installed?it?as?soon?as?it?came?out...still?have?it?around,?vista??Removed?after?15minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
burfadel

I'm running Vista x64, with sp1 and all the latest updates (I mean all, including hotfixes not listed on the Microsoft site - these are easily attainable by anyone if they know where to look. In fact, you can get them straight from Microsoft). Anyways, it runs superbly. I have no had Vista crash once, something I cannot say about XP. Mind you, I have turned off services I do not use, and have used vlite to cut out stuff I don't want. If you know what you are doing, Vista is not only more stable than XP but faster too. I must point out I would not touch 32 bit vista, I think its a pointless waste of time making 32 bit OS's now. You really need at least 4gb of ram for gaming, and you cannot get this reliably under 32 bit. Period. There is Physical Address Extension, but this is not reliable nor does it work with much of the hardware out there. I think its almost criminal big computer companies recommending 4gb of ram with the unsuspecting consumer can use only 3gb (vista sp1 show 4gb under vista but can only use 3gb). What it comes down to is people hate change, people listen to others too much sometimes, they don't know how to modify the OS to their needs, or they don't have it or their drivers updated. Windows 7 is to Vista what XP was to 2000, it is actually Windows 6.1. What they have done is streamlined it like they did with XP over 2000, and made things more modularised and do exactly what I suggested people do - strip out whatever they don't want or use! Also turning off superfetch for application launch helps too. Leave superfect service ON, but change the 'Superfetch' key in the registry from 3 (boot and application) to 2 (boot). Windows runs much better. Second point - disable turning the HDD off after 10 or 15 minutes. It slows down the computer restarting them and stuffs the drives up doing it too often :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
toadeater

Burfadel, you made my brain hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zatoichi

So glad I skipped the Vista debacle! :x

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matrix XII
Buy, Learn, Use, Enjoy.

We adapted to XP, we'll adapt to Vista.

OVer a year and i've yet to format my Vista install, it's still stable, and solid, and fast.

And no, i'm not a paid Microsoft employee

Same, actually I'm quite happy with Vista.

Everyone always says oh Vista crashes this and that..

For me, Vista has NEVER crashed in 1 year and my XP machine over 3 years has probably crashed around 20 times at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
freeza

Hmm......No.

Windows XP SP3 is in no way shape or form better than Vista SP1.

Thanks, bye.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KiHu
Same, actually I'm quite happy with Vista.

Everyone always says oh Vista crashes this and that..

For me, Vista has NEVER crashed in 1 year and my XP machine over 3 years has probably crashed around 20 times at least.

same here..

Vista works a bit faster for me at some places that XP didnt.

really nifty =)

Link to post
Share on other sites
NEVER85

This thread still around? I thought it was common knowledge that SP3 provided no improvements over SP2 other than security and a few minor tweaks no one will notice. Vista SP1 is superior in essentially every way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matrix XII

It's good to hear people say positive things about Vista. I work at Future Shop computer dept and all I ever hear from customers every day is Vista sucks this and that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ozzy76

I predict that history will not be kind to Vista.

Outside of the tech circle, Vista doesn't seem to be well liked. Heck, even people in the tech circle aren't particularly flattered. If it was going to be the replacement for XP, then it was a failure on that premise. If it was a stepping stone, a testing ground for Windows 7, if you will, then it likely was a success.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MidnightDevil
Well, I've tried Vista RTM way before it reached the stores (through not-so-legal ways) and was initially really glad it turned out so good. Average score of 4.2, Vista ran smoothly, Aero was beautiful, appreciated all the security improvements and memory handling... but that feeling didn't last long.

It was really slow at transferring files, I hate, HATE the default fonts, Firefox GUI was weird in it, Dreamweaver crashed on it, I got tired of Aero, games ran slower, UAC was getting annoying. When I tried Windowblinds, WLM strayed away of position when I restored its main window, some drivers weren't mature or even absent...

Skip past a year, and Vista is way, WAY better. Drivers work, Dreamweaver CS3 works, although I didn't try Vista with those performance enhancers patches, transfers of files have been corrected... But, guess what? I still use XP.

Why?

Aero is still boring, Windowblinds still screws up WLM main window, UAC is still annoying, default fonts are still ugly (sure, I can change them), games still run a bit slower.

Vista SP1 can't change all of those items because they are embbeded deep in the OS, personal nitpicks that make me stay away from Microsoft's latest OS. All in all, these are bad points that XP doesn't have. So I'm sticking with XP for now.

Altough I would propose to Microsoft to add extra themes in the Ultimate Extras. The default Aero theme is boring. If there were more visual styles in Aero (not WB themes because they screw up my Vista), I would consider making the change.

XP SP3, on the other hand, already shows signs of performance improvements. That is something of an achievement, and a really welcomed one. Let's just hope it also applies to other applications and overall OS improvement and not just Office.

To conclude: there really hasn't been any breakthrough that made me want to stick with Vista. XP runs, feels, looks awesome, where Vista only runs, feels, looks average.

+1

I stoped reading the rest of the thread when I reached this post. It also describes my experience with Vista. I'm also using XP ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
ANova
It's good to hear people say positive things about Vista. I work at Future Shop computer dept and all I ever hear from customers every day is Vista sucks this and that.

Maybe because it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NEVER85
Maybe because it does.

Only to people who don't know how to use a computer properly. I guess that's you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Draconian Guppy

I used to be on the Xp Sp3 bandwagon... Then I installed vista. superfetch won me over. :blush:

Link to post
Share on other sites
ANova
Only to people who don't know how to use a computer properly. I guess that's you.

:rofl:

XP runs circles around Vista and does everything I need it to, the latter is a slow bloated piece of crap with a ****ty ill-thought interface and few new features that I give a damn about. New does not equal better.

Btw, Vista is designed for the average computer illiterate Joe Schmoe, guess that's you.

Edited by ANova
Link to post
Share on other sites
1759
:rofl:

XP runs circles around Vista and does everything I need it to, the latter is a slow bloated piece of crap with a ****ty ill-thought interface and few new features that I give a damn about. New does not equal better.

Btw, Vista is designed for the average computer illiterate Joe Schmoe, guess that's you.

No, that would be Macs, Windows has nothing on it. So maybe you guys are both dumb. :p

BTW, I use OSX, Vista, and Linux, and I've found all the Vista hate overblown - most of the problems I've had were because of drivers, and UAC, a) I get a prompt maybe once a week, b) you can shut, and run as an admin (which is bad), but there's always Google. I haven't noticed any game showdowns or random crashes since last summer.

It reminds me of the XP launch, and XP wasn't that good until SP2, circa 2004. And people also forget the min. specs on XP, which was a 300 MHz P2 and 128 MB of RAM. No wonder a C2D or C2Q just fly on it (and they fly on Vista too actually).

Vista has better security, like only running as a standard user for most tasks, I've found it much better to have the driver restart if the video driver goes down, than a BSOD, and I like the improvements to Explorer and the networking (even though Microsoft buried some of the options). The biggest remaining problem I have is the folder view settings bug, I haven't noticed any file transfer issues since SP1, between my Vista box, an XP one, and my Mac.

The biggest problem I've seen with Vista from the OEMs, is the amount of crapware has doubled and tripled on new machines - it took me about a half an hour to uninstall all the Wildtangent, Google, McAfee trialware on my Toshiba when I first got it last year. My desktop was fine, but that's because I have a retail disc. And I hated the Vista betas, complete garbage.

And for the record, yes, OSX is better than Windows. By far. In terms of being a fast, stable, accessible OS, XP and Vista are miles behind. Downside, is the lack of software in some areas. Linux has gotten pretty good too, but rough around the edges, and not for typical users.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LewisBraid

Threads like this make me hate Neowin. Just pure opinion bashing... Btw i'm a Vista, Xp and Mac OS x user and they all have their benefits - i say no more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NEVER85
:rofl:

XP runs circles around Vista and does everything I need it to, the latter is a slow bloated piece of crap with a ****ty ill-thought interface and few new features that I give a damn about. New does not equal better.

Btw, Vista is designed for the average computer illiterate Joe Schmoe, guess that's you.

Maybe if you didn't try Vista on a computer that was built in 2003, it wouldn't run slow, or did you even install it at all and are just basing your opinion on what idiot bloggers have to say? It's probably one or the other. The only thing XP runs circles around Vista in is being an insecure malware haven. Funny that you say Vista is bloated when XP SP3 is nothing BUT added bloat to fix XP's inherent flaws, which are numerous. Also hilarious that you would trash Vista's interface. I guess you prefer the Fisher-Price style interface that looks like it's meant for 5 year olds. It would explain a whole lot, given your opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.